On 12/11/14 00:14, Christoph Egger wrote: > Speaking of which -- people from -release@ already wondered (and I > agree there) why we would want to keep building the kfreebsd kernel on > linux. We may want to get it removed on linux so we don't have to handle > it at two different places for little gain. What do you think?
I suppose it's a mere novelty that it does build on Linux; but with linux arches being supported stable, and kfreebsd itself now not, it seems like time to remove it there, yes. >> This ixl/ixvl driver update seems a bit big to include in such an >> unblock request. (Although, for our unofficial release, we'd more >> likely want to include that bugfix). What to do? > > It is *huge*. Guess if we were still considered for normal stable I > would ask for pre-approval based on faith in freebsd release process > somehow. As it stands I think -release@ would rightfully reject it. OK I agree, I don't see any point to burden release team with that part. But let's upload the -RC4 snapshot from SVN with the pre-approved bugfixes, fix the security bug, and make it kfreebsd-any, tying off all those loose ends. The driver backport seems like something we'd add into our unofficial stable release later, as it's a crash bug for someone having that particular hardware. Regards, -- Steven Chamberlain ste...@pyro.eu.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bsd-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5462aa2b.80...@pyro.eu.org
